The vulnerability of the scientific method

If we don’t want science to be corrupted by sin, we need something to check the power of sin.

The method of scientific discovery is frequently presented as reliable for discerning truth because it follows strictly objective protocols and procedures. Science gives us the truth about the world because its method is virtually foolproof.

Except, of course, when it is taken up by outright fools. Lots of folks, over the years, have appealed to the methods of science to “prove” their pet theories, only to have their folly exposed and their contribution erased. It seems the scientific method may be rather more pliable than some would have us think.

This is especially true when the methods of science are applied in the realm of the social sciences. Andrew Ferguson reported in The Weekly Standard on one Dutch social scientist whose experiments, studies, and conclusions are so corrupted by bias and deceit that his entire corpus of work is now being called into question.

Writing in the December 5, 2011 issue, Mr. Ferguson explained what he refers to as “the chump effect,” which he defines as “the eagerness of laymen and journalists to swallow whole the claims made by social scientists. Entire journalistic enterprises, whole books from cover to cover, would simply collapse into dust if even a smidgen of skepticism were summoned whenever we read that ‘scientists say’ or ‘a new study finds’ or ‘research shows’ or ‘data suggest.’” He explains that “Most such claims of social science, we would soon find, fall into one of three categories: the trivial, the dubious, or the flatly untrue.”

It is this last category that, according to Mr. Ferguson, describes the work of Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. I won’t go into the details here. Suffice it to say that Mr. Ferguson ably demonstrates how bias, manipulation, and overweening pride can corrupt the practice of social science, leaving students and the public deceived on matters of important social concern.

Mr. Ferguson’s animus is particularly against the hubris of social scientists whose conclusions are frequently promulgated on the basis of minimal data and using non-repeatable studies and experiments. But in recent years we’ve seen enough playing with data (the UK environmental change brouhaha of a couple of years ago) and rushing to press (more and more retractions of published papers) within the “hard” sciences to know that the scientific method is at all times vulnerable to the biases of practitioners.

Science does quite well when it sticks to the data. It’s when it scientists seek to influence social or moral agendas that they can be tempted to violate the norms of legitimate scientific practice and try to pull one over on their colleagues and the world.

Evolutionary theorists may find it difficult to account for such behavior, since lying about the findings of scientific research is not likely to benefit the survival of the human species. Why do we do it? According to Robert Trivers, in his new book, The Folly of Fools, lying and deception are pervasive, and not just among human beings. All species seek to deceive in one way or another. Human beings are especially adept at deceiving ourselves.

The reason for this, Dr. Trivers explains, is because deceiving ourselves helps us to deceive others more effectively, which, in turn – somehow – conduces to the survival of our genes, which are the real culprits in all this lying and corrupting of science and everything else.

That’s gonna be a little hard to demonstrate under the microscope, methinks.

But Dr. Trivers is right: the lying and deceiving are everywhere. The Christian knows this is because of the presence and powerful effects of sin. If we don’t want science to be corrupted by sin, we need something to check the power of sin.

Hmmm. Any ideas?